Junior Rivington Pike

So it was a surprise was it?
Moving 60-70 U10s and 80-100 U12s up the lane isn't quite as straight forward as that when the other races have to be started further down.
The start straight where it is allows fields to disperse.

I've done it. I was joint RO with Dashers twice at Darwen for FRA Junior races and moved them up and designed new routes. It's a bigger job that you might imagine when you have so many little ones, who all want to get on the front of a start line that's 3 metres wide.
If you're not careful, you end up with carnage - a bit like Cowpe a few years ago.

I'm not keen on criticising any race organiser especially when it comes to Junior races as they be more difficult to organise than senior races and there it's more than one race. From what I saw everything went well and the organisation was good. If I'm trying to encourage juniors to race and to get parents involved and a parent asks me what a fell race is would I be telling them that it's out and back on Tarmac.

I think if anyone has a beef about the underfoot conditions and think they were not up to what one would expect of a Champs race they should take it up with the FRA.
It was the FRA who asked Rivington to host a Champs race after all.
They've done exactly what has worked well for them in previous years - why change an event formula if it works well?
Wasn't it supposed to be at AW?

Also, the Champs age groups are U12 and upwards and the U12s got off the tarmac for the majority of their race.
I'm not sure of there is any compulsion to host U8 and U10 non-Champs races, and I certainly wouldn't expect any pressure to change the race spec for these NON CHAMPIONSHIP age groups.
Although with the sight of screaming, rabid parents running alongside their 8 & 9 year old kids, I wonder whether they are such a good thing anyway.

Race itself I thought was good. What let it down was parents on the course. When the leaders of various races went past coming down, they were followed by adults walking. Many of whom walked on the tarmac section, inconveniencing quite a few. One ambleside lad was cursing when someone strolled in front of him. Some of the athletes near the back of the field definitely did not get as clear a run as the leaders. Not the organisers fault but some parents!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Witton Park

I think if anyone has a beef about the underfoot conditions and think they were not up to what one would expect of a Champs race they should take it up with the FRA.
It was the FRA who asked Rivington to host a Champs race after all.
They've done exactly what has worked well for them in previous years - why change an event formula if it works well?
Wasn't it supposed to be at AW?

Also, the Champs age groups are U12 and upwards and the U12s got off the tarmac for the majority of their race.
I'm not sure of there is any compulsion to host U8 and U10 non-Champs races, and I certainly wouldn't expect any pressure to change the race spec for these NON CHAMPIONSHIP age groups.
Although with the sight of screaming, rabid parents running alongside their 8 & 9 year old kids, I wonder whether they are such a good thing anyway.

---

• AW was replaced due to FRA politics & the rules fiasco
• Rivington has been used before and I personally (see below) don't have a problem with one race being partly on steep tarmac; in fact even Anni Wa! has been criticized in the past for some of the junior races including too much road.
• Champs ROs are expected to have U8 & U10 non-champs races
• I have stepped back from helping organise the juniors champs after doing it 2009-2013
• But at present that effectively means no-one is helping Duncan plan & arrange it
• So anyone who is prepared to seriously help & advise & bring ideas of their own will I am sure be welcome
• This would be especially good if such a person is involved with juniors and familiar with the juniors champs.
• But people who just complain at all the decisions aren't being particularly helpful.

LJ - I actually think it will work better with just a junior co-ordinator, whether that's Duncan or someone else.
That's not to denigrate your efforts and input, or that of anyone else as I know a few of us have been involved over the years.
I just think at times too many cooks...

What might be a good idea is that a small group of people involved with junior fell get together and draw up a technical template for the season.
When should it start?
When should it end by?
Should male and female run together?
Can any of the races serve a dual purpose eg as a trial, as part of the Inters?
Should there be a minimum time gap between champs races?
Surface specification and any limitations.
Facilities for athletes and spectators.
How many races?
Should uphill be included?

I could go on. But if there was such a template, that was agreed at FRA Committee level, it would probably make the task of any junior co-ordinator that much easier. It would also avoid major changes in the format as co-ordinators come and go.

It is probably time for a real review as the series is now so big.
Back in 2008 Race 1 had 88 x U12s and U14s Total taking part.
In 2014 it was 145 in total.
That's a 65% increase.

I agree pretty much completely WP, and certainly don't mind the position I have filled being superceded.

• I did prepare a template / policy document, but it's been kept private rather than publicized
• This may have been due to the question of appropriate race distances, but which could be amended by the Coordinator or committee away from my original specs.
• I was all for combining with trials/intercounties races, but the International team have never made this easy.
• Age-groups don't help here, and I would perhaps have considered a wholesale revamp of the age categories eg U15/U17/U20 (this is possible without changing the distance limits)
• But if the FRA has to rely on someone living in Wales who has limited direct contact with any fell-running juniors, it's a pretty sorry state of affairs ;)

Anyone know when the results will be available ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LissaJous

[*]I was all for combining with trials/intercounties races, but the International team have never made this easy.[*]Age-groups don't help here, and I would perhaps have considered a wholesale revamp of the age categories eg U15/U17/U20 (this is possible without changing the distance limits)
[/LIST]

---

Well I was asked to host the Inters a year ago. So I could have easily managed to add races for the age groups not covered.
It would have been a great days racing.

The International side can then take it or leave it as a trial, but as the race is there, the best juniors around are there, it would make sense to use it.
A lot is made of the "race profile" when fixing a trial, but I'm not so sure it matters as much as is often made out.
The results at Pendle were not a great deal different to those at Rivington.

WP, the job needs some new input ~ if anyone has grand ideas (or even some simple, solid ideas) and is prepared to put in some hours then they should make themselves known. Otherwise you're back to the familiar routine of trying to influence the committee or the (always over-run) Junior's Coordinator on here, which I can tell you will not be very productive.

When the Intercounties first had U16/U18 it was quite a surprise to us I seem to recall, and we possibly weren't sure that the course would be hard enough for the U18s; in retrospect I do not see any reason why this year's could not have been included, if we knew that you were willing. There *may* have been some resistance from the International team about combining it, or maybe that's a false impression I picked up the year before.